Asia

India's government

Rejigged again

AS WITH comedy, timing matters when delivering a political punchline. On October 28th India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, at last reshuffled his cabinet. It was long overdue, made necessary by the departure in September of a coalition ally, and more generally by the growing sense, over several months, of a government adrift: dominated by aged men, beset by scandal and short of fresh ideas. Mr Singh afterwards said he hoped it be his last rejig before general elections due, at the latest, in mid-2014.

The most high-profile, and broadly welcome, change is the arrival of a new foreign minister, Salman Khurshid. He is only the third Muslim in the post in India’s history (though his own father, Khurshed Alam Khan, once served as a junior foreign minister, a reminder of the heavy role played by dynasty in Indian, especially Congress, politics). His elevation from his old job as law minister is mildly surprising, coming in the wake of allegations of corruption at an NGO for the disabled which is run by his wife. Evidently Congress’s leaders reckon the supposed scandal has already run its course.

He replaces an 81-year-old, S.M. Krishna, who had looked decrepit in recent years, and deferred to Mr Singh on policy. The government’s record on foreign affairs has been steady and is unlikely to change much now. Relations have improved with Pakistan in the past couple of years, and India’s role abroad is quietly expanding, for example in delivering aid to Afghanistan, bolstering relations with Myanmar and Bangladesh, and in strengthening trade relationships elsewhere in Asia. Mr Krishna is likely to be remembered best for the time he accidentally read out a speech of the Portuguese government, while attending the United Nations Security Council.

The two most important cabinet jobs—finance and home affairs—were left untouched. But one other notable development, to foreign eyes, is the return of Shashi Tharoor, once a prominent UN official, to a junior ministerial job. He had quit, two and a half years ago, over a corruption scandal related to Indian cricket. An articulate, pro-reform and Western-oriented figure, he has a job promoting better education and skills in India, but is likely, too, to help improve the government’s public communication. In addition Manish Tewari, a bright spokesman for the party, now gets a junior minister post.

In all, 22 ministers, 17 of them new, were sworn in by India’s newish president, Pranab Mukherjee, and watched closely by a pensive Sonia Gandhi, the Congress president. She and Mr Singh displayed a mix of ambitions with their changes. For a start they hoped to present a government that looks more youthful and energetic, by bringing in a host of relatively young ministers to junior posts (though, notably, not Rahul Gandhi, who is widely discussed as a future prime ministerial candidate for Congress). Yet the average age of the full cabinet ministers has shifted hardly at all: from nearly 65 years old, pre-shuffle, to just over 64 now.

Second, they displayed concerns about regional electoral matters. Six of the promoted ministers hailed from a hugely important southern state, Andhra Pradesh, which delivered more Congress MPs in the 2009 general election than any other single state. Congress’s fortunes have since slumped there, the result of a split party and a row with a local strongman. Demands by some for a breakaway state, Telangana, also flare regularly. Promoting Andhra figures to high posts may be one way to assure voters that a Congress government brings benefits to the state. That could be crucial: if Congress flops in the state, in 2014, its national electoral prospects are likely to be grim too.

Similarly a clutch of Congress figures from West Bengal were promoted, filling a regional gap created when a Bengali coalition ally, Mamata Banerjee, flounced out of government in September (in opposition to some limited economic reforms that had been announced that month). The more prominent they prove to be, the greater the likelihood of bitter confrontation with Ms Banerjee’s party, the Trinamool Congress.

Perhaps most important, however, was what did not occur. Mr Singh repeated that he had offered a post in government to Mr Gandhi, but again the young scion of the ruling Gandhi dynasty declined the responsibility. Various figures close to him have been promoted—notably Sachin Pilot becomes a junior minister for corporate affairs and Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia takes on responsibility for power. But Mr Gandhi himself is likely, instead, to get some new party job.

The significance of this may only emerge in the coming months. At first glance it suggests Mr Gandhi is less likely to be promoted as the party’s next prime-ministerial candidate. His repeated ducking of offers to become a minister suggests that he lacks the appetite for high office. With no experience in government, whether at national or state level, he will look ill-prepared to lay a claim to be prime minister. His timid performances in parliament do not help either.

Like his mother, therefore, he may aspire to a more detached sort of political role: guiding the Congress party, and so influencing government from outside. This, in turn, hints at a further possibility. Mr Gandhi may have concluded that Congress’s electoral prospects in 2014 are dim, after two terms in national government and a general weariness over corruption. If the government is destined to grow more unpopular, he may reason it is smarter for him to remain modest now and keep his ambitions in check. He may even reckon that winning in 2014 would anyway bring a less-than-enticing prospect: a more limited electoral mandate, probably in a less cheery economic climate and with an inevitably fractious coalition to manage. Thus holding off from office for some years yet may be the more appealing course.

Yet all that would open up other questions. If Congress is signalling that Mr Gandhi is not yet ready to emerge as its leader, or prime-ministerial candidate, then who is? Mr Singh is still healthy, energetic and capable, but the octogenarian must be allowed to retire at some point. It may prove impossible to find another such figure—capable of leading, yet not personally ambitious and so not a threat to the Gandhis’ dominance over the Congress party.

There is a popular cartoon this week (from US politics but applies well to India too) that says " do you want to vote for the party you hate the most or the party you like the least?"

However much Congress screws-up and we keep reading about popular disaffection with it, someone like me can't seem to think it is time to vote for the principal opposition part BJP. Why? here's why--
1) Record --- For one, some of us voted for BJP in the past and didn't like what happened. Because what happend was NOTHING. Same old corruption, same old lack of any policy or action, same old dithering and bad or slow economic policies. What happened to the freshness, vigour, market-focused policies? Nothing
2) Corruption --- On corruption, if recent exposes on Gadkari, Vadra whatever are any indication then it simply a bi-partisan issue. BJP simply wants to win instead of Congress so they can make the money instead. If this is not true, convince me and the millions like me and I will vote for you
3) Shadow Control ---- On the issue of 'remote control' - well replacing sonia/family by RSS/parivar isn't my idea of free and transparent governance. Notice the word parivar means family in Hindi anyway.
4) Aggressiveness --- However much I like some thing sin BJP, I can't help but get totally put off by its aggression. It attacks Congress simply becuase of it being Congress. It walks off parliament instead of questioning the congress. It disrupts the democracy. It criticizes its own policies when Congress implements them (reforms, nuclear deal, etc). and worse of all, it says no without spelling out any alternative. It is simply disgusting. I would welcome if they try something like - 'we think Congres shouldn't do this but do that instead'. Wow perhaps I am dreaming because the real BJP so far is simply getting on my nerves for being disruptive without clear alternate ideas on any policy
5) Leader ---- Who is the leader in BJP? for god's sake don't say Advani.. why can't he retire in peace or make him some 'buddh purush' of sorts who sits on the party sofa like a non-executive chairman. What is it about BJP that they can't tell him to stop projecting himself like he is still the PM candidate. I suspect it is party weakness, confusion, lack of any alternates and general tussle between its junior team. wow, thats really attracting me to vote for you now !
6) Policies --- ok, so you don't have leaders. no problem. tell me your policies and how they are different from the Congress? How will that create social progress, economic growth and general well being? Do I hear anything? ok, i got nothing so far!

Well, I dislike Congress but I don't think BJP is any different and I don't think voting for a third party makes the slightest of sense. Yet the intellectuals still wonder why we have coalition government after coalition in India and small fringe parties hold the fray. The answer?

Because the people of India have given up and lost hope for returning good governance to power. They still have very deep hope in democracy and know that coalitions will continue to crawl and this is their best option.

The way to motivate the people isn't on religious or caste agendas or even regional agendas (sure some regional agenda helps). The way is to charge up people by showing them a future and actions that show a party taking steps towards that future. If some party can do that, India would vote for it. Congress or BJP, they don't win by their hardline supporters that speak on these forums often. They win when the 80% of Indians like me who are in the middle get convinced.

Let's hope for a decisive win for any one single party in 2014 so that the era of coalition politics can be brought to an end. Coalition politics is taking the country nowhere and proving to be disruptive, rather than constructive. If this situation continues, people will lose interest in politics and consequently faith in democracy.

Manmohan Singh's rejig is just another ploy to distract critics from the real issues. Getting rid of the previous bunch of deadbeats and replacing them with another bunch of deadbeats only prolong the agony for himself and India. What is needed are new policies not new deadbeats!

I think that although I and the common man share your feelings of nothing happening, there is a lot that happened behind the scenes in the 4 years of the BJP government

If you look at the world bank data,
1. we went from deficit to surplus,
2. inflation was low,
3. export oriented data was improving,
4. domestic consumption was improving,
5. employment was improving(This metric has always been going down in the congress tenure)

I think if you examine the larger context and the macroeconomic policies of the parties, and the leadership that they have, there is sufficient substance to vote for the BJP.

I am astonished at how the congress manages to market itself across the globe. The media seems to be quite kind to such failed political units and socialists as is demonstrated by reports of media headlines favouring Democrats more than Republicans.
Lets think about the rejig. Everyone who was the son or daugther of someone has been promoted. Everyone who has worked hard to qualify himself/herself as a leading sycophant has been promoted.
So whats new? The only question is how Digvijay Singh, the revolutionary leader of the sychophants missed out?

Continued disappointment.
Kurshid should have been kicked out, instead they give him an important ministry.
6 ministers from AP, pathetic attempt to get back AP support in 2014.
The rest, at best are shameless lap dogs of the congress who will do anything to please the gandhi family.

This article was ROFL stuff, starting from the first line and the SM krishna reference,to saying that salman khurshid is welcome as India's foreign minister, after he threatened to kill an activist on national media.

Surprisingly the author has missed the importantd development i.e. removal of Mr. Jaipal Reddy from the Petroleum Ministry Hr fiercly opposed the chrony capirtalistis policies by RIL. I think, it is convenient for all, Govt, Opposition and media too to let the issue die its natural death. Also, the elevation of Salman Khurshid will be seen as an arrogant move. He should have been sent back to party work. Congress has now completely run out of the option.

Anyways, factually speaking Congress need not worry much as main opposition party is in complete disarray, left and other regional parties are in no position to create any substantial impact. Kejriwal, though an honest man, is still a noice in electoral politics and has miles to go before he could create any considerable impact at national level.

People may vote for COngress, after this face saving exercise, mainly because of lack of better alternative.

Lastly, it must be added that the attack on Rahul Gandhi seems to be a matter of personal vendetta for author as most of the arguments have been supported with far fetched imagination and semblance of logic.

I say, 'Rejigged again for show'. Congress party has rarely focused on the substantive issues. Look at the 'knee jerk' ways in which this government functions - in whatever policy front.

This 'rejig' is also, in part a response to the recent powerful expose of the arrogant ways of congress ministers and their close relations function.

Mr.Salman Khurshid and his wife have been shown to be poor (or dishonest) managers of an important NGO which had received public monies in the past and likely to receive more in the future.

As uneducated thugs do everywhere in the world, Mr. Khurshid, an educated man of the ruling caste, threatens Mr. Kejriwal of physical harm, with cameras rolling and mics on.

No matter, he gets promoted. This has to be the sign of ultimate arrogance of a party which has retained power in India, in substance, through 'smart-ass' politics - NOT through solid SOCIO-ECONOMIC performance.

The induction of several folks from Andhra Pradesh is an example. In 2009, congress won this state through a number of promises, mostly, of 'freebies', such as free electricity to farmers. The party also promised a separate state for the Telengana region.

I would not be surprised if the people of Andhra feel thoroughly cheated. I do hope they realise the nature and scope of the smart-ass politics played by the trickiest political parties in any democracy in the world.

A better party that did a lot of good for Andhra, Telugu Desam, led by an interesting man, Chandrababu Naidu could not handle the 'smart-ass' skills of the congress.

Can they do so in the next round of elections? In the meanwhile the son of the congressman who outplayed Naidu, Mr. JaganMohan Reddy, a 'born again' Christian, is making waves.

Congress may not be able to obtain a repeat of its success again in Andhra.

India has not had as many quality leaders as the line up from 1920s onwards, right up to the late 1950s. That is not 'romanticising' the past.

1. Quality Leaders:

C. Rajagopalachari(Rajaji) or Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, qualified to become Premier of India. When Pandit Nehru was the eventual choice, neither of them gave out as much as a sigh or sulked.
Rajaji got down to work as did the Sardar in consolidating the nation.
No suggestion here that Pandit Nehru was any the less than the two, as a leader.
Point made is that these were people of quality.
Just as there is quality in things, from fruits, grains to gold, there are differences in quality between humans.
"For work of particular kinds, we are not all equal"

In today's India, almost every politician, with name-recognition, wants to be the Prime Minister!! Worse, the Indian Public CANNOT JUDGE QUALITY, even of excellent performers.
Nor does the 'SYSTEM' recognise MERIT or demerit of politicians. There lies the tragedy for India.

2. Political systems should be able to throw up good leaders:

The 'blue print' set in place in the first THREE DECADES of independence, had entrenched, 'dynasty, vote bank-caste-community, reservation-quota, licence-permit-NoC' as the foundation of India's POLITICAL ECONOMY.

Any real, capable LEADER has to show EXTRAORDINARY PERFORMANCE to TEAR THROUGH this 'blue print' - to push his or her head above the morass of Indian political mud, bubbling with the fury of a few immature and ill-informed groups with vested interests in the prevailing CORRUPTION RAJ.

IT WILL TAKE ANOTHER DECADE OR MORE to transform this 'blue print' - a firm legacy of a dishonest, posturing political party that had retained power in India through 'divide and rule' - not through solid socio-economic performance.

A disgusting move of pawns on the chessboard without imagination and furthering national interest but only rewarding blind loyalty. There is no talent in the cabinet and no intellectual caliber except in one or two.Those who do not have sense of public perception and selectivity with low communication skills or maturity in delivery have been elevated. It is a poor stock of a great country,

While we take pride in being the 'biggest'democracy in the world - biggest, to my thinking, refers to the numbers alone - there is nothing big about it in spirit. We choose our own dictators every five years. We have 'freedom of speech' but only in letter. We see this freedom manifest when Salman Khurshid provokes his adversary to visit his constituency and also 'return' ( I think he meant 'return in one piece') but when a whistle-blower brings corporate or governance malpractice to light, the voice is silenced forever. We have 37% candidates in H.P who never filed IT yet they have enough money to fund their campaigns. The media in the country is outfoxing fox and making public opinion sway like marionettes. We have talkers when what we actually need are doers. We are a nation of charades, sick of its petty system of dynastic politics and corruption yet we bring the so called democracy to a parade at 'Ramlila Maidan'. Truth of the matter is we've had too much of this pseudo-democracy. We need change. 'Real' change.